On David Mark, Maurice Iwu and Electoral Reform

The continuous utterance of thoughtless remarks by the Senate President, David Mark is becoming quite worrisome.


As Communications Minister, David Mark told 88 million Nigerians that “telephone is not for the poor”. When the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said on her last visit to Nigeria that the nation leaders should put their house in order and provide good leadership, Senator Mark replied

“How can somebody be sitting in the United States and be telling us how to solve serious crisis in this country? Have they got the solution to their problems? How did they find themselves in Iraq? Mrs Clinton seems to have taken her briefs from individuals or groups and other failed politicians who have an axe to grind with the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.

How can you describe such a response from a Senate President? Exaggerated patriotism or symptoms of delusion?

On the recent 49th Independence anniversary, Senator Mark again exhibited his delusional tendencies by telling us that “Nigeria has achieved its full potential”. How can anyone in the face of growing poverty say that Nigeria has achieved its potential? Maybe the N1.3 trillion shared annually in salaries and allowances amongst the legislators, or the personal wealth he acquired during the Military regime are his indices for measuring a nation’s potential.

As the nation’s number three citizen, one would expect that Senator Mark would at least exhibit some level of decorum when making public statements. But based on his recent comments on the INEC Chairman and electoral reform, it seems the Senate President has become an ‘obsessive-compulsive’.

Speaking on the theme: “Legislating for an enduring electoral system in Nigeria” at the 2009 Senate Retreat, the Senate president was quoted as saying:

“Our electoral process is certainly not the worst in the world as some self-styled analysts would want us to believe and let me say further and more emphatically this time that the removal of Prof. Maurice Iwu is not the review or the reform of our electoral process. “Removal of Iwu is not synonymous with electoral reform or review. Those calling for the removal of Iwu as the first step are trivialising a very serious national issue”

It is not surprising to hear a self-styled patriot cum Senate President, say that our electoral system is not the worst in the world. How can you expect a man to criticise a system from which he has been a huge beneficiary. We need not to remind Senator Mark that it is the rot and institutionalised fraud in our electoral system that has provided him a ticket to the National Assembly. It is therefore right to say that any criticism levelled against the electoral commission will be an indictment of his (s)election as a Senator.

It has become quite common for our leaders and those purporting to be ‘patriotic’ citizens to utter such statements whenever the government is criticised for not doing the right thing. Government apologists are always quick to remind us we are not the worst after all. Meaning we should happy with what we have (!) Whether that’s meant to be a consolation I do not understand. But the question is why can’t we ever compare ourselves with the best? Why do we console ourselves by comparing ourselves with failures?

The most infuriating thing about Senator Mark’s recent statement were his comments that, “…..removal Prof Maurice Iwu is not the review or reform of our electoral process”. Yes, the review of our electoral process is more than just Maurice Iwu. After all, Maurice Iwu is only an appointee. It is also right to say that that it will be difficult to have an umpire who will be unbiased under the current electoral laws – when the President can just handpick whoever he wants as the INEC Chairman.

However, it is ludicrous for anyone to think that the imperfection of our electoral system exonerates Maurice Iwu from the electoral fraud he has directly or indirectly condoned. The legacies of Maurice Iwu are there for all to see, From Ekiti to Anambra,, Ondo to Kogi, Sokoto to Bayelsa, Cross River to Adamawa, Maurice Iwu made it a point of duty to subjugate the principles of free and fair elections. There is not gainsaying that Maurice Iwu actively colluded with the ruling party, through ‘elimination by substitution’ to deprive some candidates of their constitutional rights to participate in the elections.

For anyone then to think that Maurice Iwu himself is not a problem, that person must either be deranged or suffering from mental amnesia. The question we need to ask is, based on the resources at his disposal, as the Prof. Iwu discharged the functions of his office to the best of his ability? Let’s forget about the electoral flaws, Prof Iwu has demonstrated over and over again that he his not only incompetent but also lacking moral integrity.

When I was growing up, I used to remember a man called Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey, Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO). For me and people of my generation, the name Ovie-Whiskey was synonymous with ‘fraud’. This was because of the role Ovie-Whiskey played during the 1983 democratic elections – blatantly supporting the ruling party. But fast forward to 2009, Maurice Iwu has made Ovie-Whiskey look like an angel.

The removal of Maurice Iwu alone will not provide solution to the challenges in our electoral system. But let’s make no mistake; his ‘immediate’ sack will be a great step towards achieving a sustainable electoral reform.

Political Parties and Electoral Reform

The public reaction to the ruling of the elections petition tribunal sitting in Ogun State, in favour of the incumbent governor Gbenga Daniel was not surprising. The lopsidedness of our electoral system means that the odds are heavily stacked against any opposition. Our democratic system is one of the only few where an incumbent political party does not lose elections. The “absolute” power enjoyed by the incumbent, makes it virtually impossible for any opposition. In a situation where the President controls the electoral commission and law enforcement agents what can we expect? Even in cases where we have had election re-run as result of tribunal ruling, the incumbent still returns to power, even with larger votes! As seen recently in Ekiti State.

The public reaction to ruling against the opposition although expected, should however be treated with caution. As one would expect, the Action Congress (AC) supporters are always quick to point fingers at the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP). When PDP win elections, we are constantly reminded of rigging, violence, intimidation etc. When an appeal is lost at the tribunal, the opposition is always quick to say that the Judges have been bribed. Yes I agree that some of that these things do happen, but the question is, does this make the opposition party a “saint”? Does it mean that opposition parties are not involved in rigging? Are we saying opposition parties have never offered bribes to tribunal judges or electoral commissioners? The fact remains that elections in Nigeria are won by the party with best “rigging” machinery. The difference between the incumbent and opposition is that, whilst the opposition employs the services of thugs, the incumbent uses the state apparatus (Police, Army etc). And from a layman’s perspective, a Policeman stuffing a ballot box is worse than a political thug intimidating voters. Also collating election results at the Police station is more serious than inclusion of fictitious names on the voters’ register. But really is one form of electoral fraud worse than another?

It was the same issue when the opposition party candidate in Osun State, Rauf Aregbesola was arrested and charged to court for forgery recently. The Inspector-General of Police alleged that the Police report tendered by Aregbesola is support of his appeal was indeed “forged”. As we will expect, the arrest was seen as another “government magic”. Many political and social commentators saw it as a ploy to suppress the opposition, but thank goodness that we are in democracy. The case is now in court, and it is up to the court to decide if the report was indeed forged. My argument on the issue has always been it is irrelevant if it took the Police twelve months to realise that the report was forged. The most important thing is to establish if it was forged or not. And if the report was forged, the Police have every right to charge him to court. An opposition that is engaged in forgery is no better than the incumbent that has rigged itself into power. We need to start calling a spade a spade, and not just an agricultural instrument.

I understand people’s frustration with the PDP. I agree that the PDP has offered us NOTHING for the last ten years since its being in power. But are the opposition parties any different. What is in the manifesto of AC, PPA, DPA, and ANPP? For me, the current group of political parties are no different from each other. Whilst they may have different names, their ideology and principle are all same – if any! These are parties founded on self-preservation and greed. The parties only provide a platform for people to seek political office, have a bite of the national cake and nothing more.

We have often criticised Former President Obasanjo and PDP for intimidating all the PDP presidential aspirants in 2007in order to pave way for Umar Yar’Adua. It is common knowledge that some of the former governors were even threatened with prosecution. However, how is that different from how Gov. Raji Fashola emerged? Was the imposition of Raji Fashola on AC candidates better than the intimidation of PDP presidential aspirants? Is that what we call democracy? The Fashola issue has however been swept under the carpet because of his popularity. However, if Umar Yar’Adua has also been performing, then how PDP conducted its Presidential primaries might also have been a “dead issue”.

My position is that the clamour for “genuine” electoral reform should be devoid of party partisanship. The interest of the nation should be of utmost importance. The current electoral system is not working, and voters are the biggest losers. Let’s not be deceived, even if an AC candidate becomes President in 2011 under the current system, the issues we have will still remain. Then it will be the PDP crying foul. The challenge with our electoral system is not about political parties. It is the system that has encouraged fraud, thuggery etc. Let’s continue to put pressure on the govt for a genuine electoral reform, instead of shouting AC/PDP or crying wolf. The Justice Uwais Panel report on Electoral Reform is a very comprehensive document. However, the govt has been “cherry picking” which aspect suits it most in order to further perpetuate itself in power. This approach cannot be right. Why can’t we have a healthy debate on the report has presented. I’m not canvassing for a total adoption of all its recommendations because some might not be practical. But the report represents a major starting point.